@ajamafalous: I don't think it's fair to admit that you've played a game for upwards of 3,000 hours, and then claim to come from a place of rationality.

Over 12 years? The average person has a lot of free time on their hands, especially when/if they are a student. Besides, I think the more time you spend with something, the more valid of a critique you can provide of it.

I don't like Diablo 3 and consider it a huge disappointment on a number of levels. I have a lot of complaints about the game that I won't get into, but my biggest issue stems from the Auction House. I believe that the game was designed to drive the player to use the auction house. Inferno is excessively difficult and item drops are intentionally poor for that reason. I just don't like it, feels completely disingenuous.

Yes. I too have put ridiculous hours into certain games (Diablo II included). From first hand experience, there is nothing rational about it.

@Xymox said:

108 hours here, and I'm also in the camp of "D3 doesn't deserve GOTY at all". Mainly (for me) it's because of the patch philosophy they had early on which broke my experience with it. No idea if it's changed now, but I don't care if it has.

In my opinion, game hours don't directly translate to enjoyment or GOTY status. I've spent 11 hours with Hotline Miami, and it's a much better video game and I've enjoyed my time with it a whole lot more.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy my time with D3. But it's still probably my least favorite title of this year, and I finished Duke Nukem Forever this year.

Fair enough. You did enjoy the game after all. I would think that it is basic human instinct to cease performing an action one does not enjoy. That people can play this game for so long while maintaining an active dislike for it is what confuses me.

So, the GOTY chatter is becoming louder and louder. And one of things I'm picking up is that apparently people don't like Diablo Tres. How and when did that happened? The feeling I had from those first couple of months was that it was a great game and that it sold like a modafoka. Was I wrong from the beginning or something happened along the way?

I thought Diablo 3 as a whole was a disappointment. Played through the whole game with a bunch of friends, and I only completed it because I was playing with them. The few times I tried to play solo it was incredibly boring.

Diablo 3 was the perfect reminder that any connection I had to blizzard games when I was younger is now gone, and I have to accept that.

Yeah, I don't know what people's deal is. Sure, it may lose it's edge during the back half of playing Inferno, but honestly, that game gave me a ton of entertainment- more than most $60 games this year. I played through that game 3 times, with a bunch of different family and friends- it was awesome, because it was a game almost everyone bought. Maybe people's expectations were set too high- Diablo III is just a game- nothing more. I'd still give it 5/5, and it's on my top 10 for sure (which is easy, because I only finished like, 12 games this year.)

I knew a bunch of people that hated it from the beginning. Didn't like the fact that they were making changes or some such nonsense. I loved it and still do although I haven't played it in a long time.

The no PVP is kinda fucked up if they never added that. I would never touch that but since they said they would put it out they should do it.

So, the GOTY chatter is becoming louder and louder. And one of things I'm picking up is that apparently people don't like Diablo Tres. How and when did that happened? The feeling I had from those first couple of months was that it was a great game and that it sold like a modafoka. Was I wrong from the beginning or something happened along the way?

There seemed to be some expectation that the game was interesting and playable for infinity hours. Basically it was not all that fun to play for > 100 hours. A few times I ran across posts along the line of "this game sucks, I've played it for 344 hours and there is just nothing to do" in forums......

Having to log in online, the sort of shaky real money auction house for items in a single/co-op game, and overblown Diablo II nostalgia (the playing games in highschool/middleschool factor) probably didn't help. In terms of GOTY, Diablo 3 nailed down its intended gameplay well, but the story was not interesting and the voice acting sucked. So it really would not make sense to call it a best of the year when you can get both of those things (or games that do not both with half baked parts and just leave them out).

Edit: Giving diablo 3 GOTY would be along the lines of giving that award to geometry wars or similar to me. Sure you can put a ton of hours into it, but reasonably good mechanics is not going to be enough post 1995 or so.

I think that people are right, looking at some of the responses on here... expectations absolutely have a huge role to play. I never expected (because it would, frankly, be foolish to expect) Diablo 3 to be a game that I could sink myself into for the next 10 years. I always knew it would be a game I'd enjoy for some amount of time, and stop playing when the enjoyment stopped. I got upwards of 100 hours of enjoyment out of D3, that makes it a great game in my book. GOTY? Eh, probably not. There are too many games this year that were special in ways which D3 was not. But it's still a damned good game.

I think "Game of the Year" is a stupid title, honestly. Is there really a game that an entire community of people can say "was the best?" I haven't played, nor will I play, Journey; but a lot of people seem to feel that the game deserves to be there. I still think "The game you had the most fun playing this year" is a better award, and it's a personal judgement - not community wide.

Have you been playing it on Elite at all? Hardcore at all? I can actually PLAY Torchlight II on Hardcore and not worry about lag killing my guy.

Moreover, the systems in play with Torchlight II add a much needed layer of complexity. Armor shatter is probably one of the best new things in hack 'n' slash games.

Path of Exile is leaps and bounds above Diablo III.

D3 had its turn, and they fucked it up. They didn't make the CHARACTER powerful. They made the GEAR powerful, and in turn, it became nothing but a grind. Sure, they added in Paragon structure later on, but it was too little too late at that point. Every time I load that game back up, I WANT to love it. T2 and PoE are just vastly superior products...and at a much cheaper price-of-entry as well. Even if they were $60, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

@ajamafalous: I find it interesting when people form their criticisms of Diablo III vs II based on the failings of Inferno. If you really wanted to emulate the Diablo II experience, you would play Diablo III to the end of Hell then just farm loot doing runs on whatever. The same game is essentially there, sans the extended levels to grind until they introduced the Paragon system. In my mind, it would be like if 343 added a fifth difficulty to Halo 5 then everyone immediately started bitching about it being a shitty game because Legendarier mode did not line up with their experiences playing Legendary mode in Halo 4, even though Legendary mode still existed in Halo 5.

I realize this doesn't address the issues I assume you have with the overall game as a whole. I was just using that specific part of your criticism as a jumping-off point.

Quite frankly I don't know. People who had 100+ hours in it will turn around and called it shit. I don't know if they were expecting 1000+ hours or what, but if you really think the games crap and you're 100 hours in then you're an idiot. Congrats on wasting your time.

I thought it was great. Think I had like 60 or so hours in it. Would love to go back continue finishing it on other difficulties, but there are other games to play.

@ck1nd: There are people who believe that "game I had the most fun with" and "Best Game of the Year" aren't the same thing.... personally I'll never understand that.

I have a feeling that Diablo III pvp will turn into a Wrath of the Lich King "dance studio" situation. It was a promised feature on the box and it never came out. "Customize your hero: Transform your hero's look with new character customization options, including new hairstyles and dances." People are still waiting on it.

TBH I never even finished D2 on hell. I always got bored, somewhere between nightmare and Hell. I mean I was already locked into my skills somewhere in the last chapter of normal... and then it was just rinse and repeat. So when I hear people say they loved D2 more than D3, I think they stink of either nostalgia or irrational. I actually finished D3 because if I ever got bored of my playstyle, a new one was only seconds away. And although I agree that the narration in D2 made for a much more interesting story, I don't think the substance was more than it is in D3.

There are also people who don't really understand adaptability of markets to be able to create certain forms products in order to be able to provide people with what they desire. Blizzard's costs were ridiculous for D3, and if DRM wasn't released, the piracy risk would have been substantive, so I generally associate this anti DRM sentiment as pure ignorance or irrational(unless you are really someone who doesn't have internet on his computer for the grand majority of the time). And it did suck that there was lag at launch... but its hard to blame blizzard for expecting to sell less.

The people still enjoying D3 are busy playing it rather than complaining about it. It had a rough start but with the recent patches has gotten way better and will continue to improve. With the level of hype people had for it from their nostalgia from D2 there is no way it could have lived up to it. Not what everyone was dreaming for, but still a great game.

@ajamafalous: I find it interesting when people form their criticisms of Diablo III vs II based on the failings of Inferno. If you really wanted to emulate the Diablo II experience, you would play Diablo III to the end of Hell then just farm loot doing runs on whatever. The same game is essentially there, sans the extended levels to grind until they introduced the Paragon system. In my mind, it would be like if 343 added a fifth difficulty to Halo 5 then everyone immediately started bitching about it being a shitty game because Legendarier mode did not line up with their experiences playing Legendary mode in Halo 4, even though Legendary mode still existed in Halo 5.

I realize this doesn't address the issues I assume you have with the overall game as a whole. I was just using that specific part of your criticism as a jumping-off point.

That would be a fine way of thinking if the gear in Diablo III was itemized in the same way as Diablo II, but it's not even close. Diablo III's itemization is just WoW lite. They've tried to make the legendaries more powerful with patches, but the actual item stats are still incredibly tame and boring. There aren't any actual unique items with unique stats that you can create a whole build around like in Diablo II (see: things like Wolfhowl). Because of this, gearing in Diablo III is not "I'm going to put together this crazy set of gear with a bunch of neat modifiers" like in Diablo II, it's "I'm going to just get as much of these four stats relevant to my class as I can." Because of that, you're forced to play in Inferno, because that's where the gear with the 'most stats' drops.

Just as an aside to your first point about the failings of Inferno, I actually wasn't one of those people that quit because of the ridiculous grind at Act II Inferno. Diablo II being my favorite game ever, I really wanted to like Diablo III, so I grinded the hell (the inferno?) out of it. My old Diablo II friends and I were part of the top 1% of the 1% that had Inferno Diablo on farm status before that first Inferno nerf patch. It was less that Inferno was 'too hard' or whatever, and more that, with the way they had structured the game, there was just nothing to do once you had beaten Inferno. The game isn't freeform enough to just let you 'do whatever' with your builds the way Diablo II was, itemization is 90% identical across classes and across builds within the same class, and there's no reason to remake a character to try out different things because you only need one of each class. I realize a lot of people will say that that was a good thing, but I think it was a terrible choice. I don't think making design concessions for people that will only be playing your game for the first month is a good way to guarantee longevity for your hardcore crowd.

@ajamafalous: I find it interesting when people form their criticisms of Diablo III vs II based on the failings of Inferno. If you really wanted to emulate the Diablo II experience, you would play Diablo III to the end of Hell then just farm loot doing runs on whatever. The same game is essentially there, sans the extended levels to grind until they introduced the Paragon system. In my mind, it would be like if 343 added a fifth difficulty to Halo 5 then everyone immediately started bitching about it being a shitty game because Legendarier mode did not line up with their experiences playing Legendary mode in Halo 4, even though Legendary mode still existed in Halo 5.

I realize this doesn't address the issues I assume you have with the overall game as a whole. I was just using that specific part of your criticism as a jumping-off point.

That would be a fine way of thinking if the gear in Diablo III was itemized in the same way as Diablo II, but it's not even close. Diablo III's itemization is just WoW lite. They've tried to make the legendaries more powerful with patches, but the actual item stats are still incredibly tame and boring. There aren't any actual unique items with unique stats that you can create a whole build around like in Diablo II (see: things like Wolfhowl). Because of this, gearing in Diablo III is not "I'm going to put together this crazy set of gear with a bunch of neat modifiers" like in Diablo II, it's "I'm going to just get as much of these four stats relevant to my class as I can." Because of that, you're forced to play in Inferno, because that's where the gear with the 'most stats' drops.

Just as an aside to your first point about the failings of Inferno, I actually wasn't one of those people that quit because of the ridiculous grind at Act II Inferno. Diablo II being my favorite game ever, I really wanted to like Diablo III, so I grinded the hell (the inferno?) out of it. My old Diablo II friends and I were part of the top 1% of the 1% that had Inferno Diablo on farm status before that first Inferno nerf patch. It was less that Inferno was 'too hard' or whatever, and more that, with the way they had structured the game, there was just nothing to do once you had beaten Inferno. The game isn't freeform enough to just let you 'do whatever' with your builds the way Diablo II was, itemization is 90% identical across classes and across builds within the same class, and there's no reason to remake a character to try out different things because you only need one of each class. I realize a lot of people will say that that was a good thing, but I think it was a terrible choice. I don't think making design concessions for people that will only be playing your game for the first month is a good way to guarantee longevity for your hardcore crowd.

Mmm, but I think a lot of your problems with gearing circle back to the whole Inferno issue. Hell in Diablo II wasn't particularly difficult. Even though there were only a dozen or so "optimal" builds in all of D2 with very specific gearing requirements, you could clear the entire game with any of hundreds of sub-optimal builds. Those same builds exist in D3, but because of the extremely sharp curve of Inferno, gearing became singularly specific as you said because those optimal builds became mandatory. Which brings me back to my original point. If Inferno never existed then you would have been free to farm D3 Hell with any crazy build you could come up with, using whatever crazy combination of gear you could come up with, just like D2.

@ajamafalous: I find it interesting when people form their criticisms of Diablo III vs II based on the failings of Inferno. If you really wanted to emulate the Diablo II experience, you would play Diablo III to the end of Hell then just farm loot doing runs on whatever. The same game is essentially there, sans the extended levels to grind until they introduced the Paragon system. In my mind, it would be like if 343 added a fifth difficulty to Halo 5 then everyone immediately started bitching about it being a shitty game because Legendarier mode did not line up with their experiences playing Legendary mode in Halo 4, even though Legendary mode still existed in Halo 5.

I realize this doesn't address the issues I assume you have with the overall game as a whole. I was just using that specific part of your criticism as a jumping-off point.

That would be a fine way of thinking if the gear in Diablo III was itemized in the same way as Diablo II, but it's not even close. Diablo III's itemization is just WoW lite. They've tried to make the legendaries more powerful with patches, but the actual item stats are still incredibly tame and boring. There aren't any actual unique items with unique stats that you can create a whole build around like in Diablo II (see: things like Wolfhowl). Because of this, gearing in Diablo III is not "I'm going to put together this crazy set of gear with a bunch of neat modifiers" like in Diablo II, it's "I'm going to just get as much of these four stats relevant to my class as I can." Because of that, you're forced to play in Inferno, because that's where the gear with the 'most stats' drops.

Just as an aside to your first point about the failings of Inferno, I actually wasn't one of those people that quit because of the ridiculous grind at Act II Inferno. Diablo II being my favorite game ever, I really wanted to like Diablo III, so I grinded the hell (the inferno?) out of it. My old Diablo II friends and I were part of the top 1% of the 1% that had Inferno Diablo on farm status before that first Inferno nerf patch. It was less that Inferno was 'too hard' or whatever, and more that, with the way they had structured the game, there was just nothing to do once you had beaten Inferno. The game isn't freeform enough to just let you 'do whatever' with your builds the way Diablo II was, itemization is 90% identical across classes and across builds within the same class, and there's no reason to remake a character to try out different things because you only need one of each class. I realize a lot of people will say that that was a good thing, but I think it was a terrible choice. I don't think making design concessions for people that will only be playing your game for the first month is a good way to guarantee longevity for your hardcore crowd.

Mmm, but I think a lot of your problems with gearing circle back to the whole Inferno issue. Hell in Diablo II wasn't particularly difficult. Even though there were only a dozen or so "optimal" builds in all of D2 with very specific gearing requirements, you could clear the entire game with any of hundreds of sub-optimal builds. Those same builds exist in D3, but because of the extremely sharp curve of Inferno, gearing became singularly specific as you said because those optimal builds became mandatory. Which brings me back to my original point. If Inferno never existed then you would have been free to farm D3 Hell with any crazy build you could come up with, using whatever crazy combination of gear you could come up with, just like D2.

Yes, that's definitely true. The problem is that there aren't other subsystems in the game to make an easy grind fun or rewarding, such as finding truly unique gear or releveling to try out wacky builds, like in Diablo II. Ultimately, I think the game would've fallen a lot flatter if Inferno wasn't included at all, because it's missing a bunch of what Diablo II was carried by.

@ajamafalous: Fair enough. The Paragon system brings back memories of the grind to 99 but is admittedly less fun since you don't get to put points into things. And I'll agree that the game would have fallen flatter than D2 without Inferno, but I'm guessing the backlash also wouldn't have been as harsh.

Mostly people just love to get up on their soap box and fucking cry. I bought maybe half of my items. Personally I had a lot of fun with the game, got some nice gear, but I couldnt grind act 2 for the 3000th time. Were the drop rates from D2 ever actually compared with D3? Personally I dont remember them being all that great.

For me it was a really great game until somewhere around finishing a second playthrough. I suddenly hit a wall of boredom at roughly the same amount of time that Jeff put into it. It's really bizarre because I adored Diablo I and II like many others. There just seems to be something missing that gives reason to play it over the course of months and years.

Mostly people just love to get up on their soap box and fucking cry. I bought maybe half of my items. Personally I had a lot of fun with the game, got some nice gear, but I couldnt grind act 2 for the 3000th time. Were the drop rates from D2 ever actually compared with D3? Personally I dont remember them being all that great.

The rarest items in Diablo 2 like the Zod rune, Tyreals Might, and the rest of the TC87's are extremely rare to this day without trading. The thing that made Diablo 2 great was that there was lots of low and mid tier items that were still great and in many cases best in slot. It made it so every unique and set item drop for the most part was worthwhile and memorable. I still love Diablo 3, but the items have no soul to them, i really hope they fix that with the expansions.